A heron flies over the trees in the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. A spill from the Portland-Montreal Pipeline 40 miles away could threaten wildlife here and across Northern Vermont. Photo Credit: Annie Mackin

On a lazy August afternoon in the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, the wide river flows under gently bobbing white and yellow water lilies, around easily missed turtles basking on rocks, past watchful tall herons, and narrows on its way out into the windy Missisquoi Bay at the northernmost part of Lake Champlain.

This tree-lined sanctuary sits at the end of the Missisquoi River’s winding path through northern Vermont, and it’s a vital feeding, nesting and resting habitat for many different types of wildlife that can be found in smaller numbers throughout the state. It’s also one of many areas that would be threatened by a break in an aging oil pipeline that cuts through Vermont, and which could be used to transport a type of heavy crude oil that is nearly impossible to clean up.

Birds and fish of the Missisquoi River – and Vermont

Map showing the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, and the kayak route taken in this blog post. Map Credit: USFWS

Yesterday, as I dipped my paddle into the calm water over the course of a 9-mile kayak loop off of Route 78 in Swanton, an oil spill was the last thing on my mind – there was too much wildlife to see.

Just a few hundred feet downstream from the highway, a Great Blue Heron – the iconic creature of the refuge – watched us paddle close before opening his wide blue-grey wings, slowly flapped a few feet above the marsh grass, and settled on a branch farther away. Several more herons made appearances throughout the afternoon, but none let us get as close as this one did. And the graceful white egrets standing miles farther into the refuge were the least willing to be photographed of all.

After an easy float with the current out to the bay, we drifted around the outside of Shad Island, which is one of the region’s most important and productive Great Blue Heron rookeries. In the spring, the young birds are so loud you can barely hear anything else. Today, it was quiet. A screech prompted us to look up, in time to see an osprey carrying a fish in its claws, over our heads and high into the trees. Osprey are relatively common in the area, fishing in the choppier waters of the lake and nesting in trees throughout the refuge.

An osprey seen flying over the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, followed by a black tern. Photo Credit: Ken Sturm, USFWS

They have lots of food to choose from – as do local fishermen, who ply the waters in small fishing boats almost every day the lake and river aren’t frozen over. The most-sought-after fish are walleye, northern pike, largemouth bass, bullhead, white perch and yellow perch.

Paddling back through the dark, still waters in the central channel of the refuge, we saw a fish jump every few minutes. A huge, spotted brown bird of prey saw them too – body too big to be a heron, huge wingspan, mottled coat, most likely a red-shouldered hawk – which swooped in and out of the trees waiting for the right moment to grab one. Bald eagles also nest in the refuge from time to time, but we weren’t lucky enough to spot an eagle.

A reminder of what’s at stake

Unfortunately, all of these birds, fish and other residents of the refuge would feel the adverse effects of an oil spill. A break in the WWII-era pipeline where it crosses the Missisquoi, or a problem at the pumping station just over the border in Quebec, could cause oil to spill – and the company that operates the pipeline admits that the oil could make it this far. If the pipeline were being used to transport tar sands oil – a thick, heavy, sticky substance that sinks to the bottom of rivers and has proven nearly impossible to clean up – the impact would be much worse.

Kayaking the Missisquoi River. Photo Credit: Annie Mackin

In fact, the 2010 tar sands spill that polluted the Kalamazoo River in Michigan reached a similar distance (40 miles) and a lake at the farthest point was still so dirty that the EPA directed the company to dredge it again three years later. Oil spills can travel fast – the Portland Pipe Line Company estimated that a spill in the Missisquoi would cover about 1 mile every hour – and based on the wind speed and direction, can move even faster.

Residents and neighbors of the area near where the pipeline crosses through Vermont in the Northeast Kingdom have been coming together over the threat to their waters and local wildlife. The threat extends many miles beyond the postcard-perfect spot where the pipeline itself crosses under the covered bridge in North Troy: It reaches into the darkest inlets of the wildlife refuge nearly 40 miles away. Getting out on the water in person to marvel at just how tall a heron really is, or how high fish can jump, reminds us exactly what’s at stake when we make decisions that involve risks to our water, land and air. Vermont’s wildlife habitat is priceless, and we owe it to future generations of noisy young blue herons – and the people who love them – to protect it.

Moose and young in Berlin, New Hampshire. Moose rely on New England’s streams and rivers for water and habitat. Flickr photo by Dave Spier.

This week, the governors of New England states are meeting with leaders of Canada’s Eastern provinces in the mountains of New Hampshire, at the annual New England Governors and Eastern Premiers Conference.

As they make plans and consider policies for the coming years, now is a good time for our leaders to discuss the incredible opportunity to build on progress made throughout the region, keep dirty fuels out and build a clean energy future..

It’s meaningful that the conference, which is being held in Bretton Woods this year, is located only a few towns from the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line’s path through New Hampshire, which transports oil from South Portland, Maine, to Montreal. The pipeline—and its potential use for transporting climate disrupting tar sands oil in the opposite direction for export—is a symbol of the crossroads at which the United States and Canada currently stand. Will we continue to lock ourselves into fossil fuel infrastructure for 50, 70, maybe even 100 more years? Or will we say “No” to the dirtiest fuels and continue the move toward clean energy? Our governors and regional premiers have already shown leadership on this question, and they can use this conference to take the next step.

Recognizing the tar sands threat to the Northeast

Tar sands oil has the potential to pollute New England and Canada’s shared water and air, and to negate the hard work our leaders have done to make the Northeast a leader on addressing climate change. Not only does new infrastructure pose the threat of spills from pipelines, tankers and trains, the fact is that without action to keep tar sands out of our gas tanks, tar sands-derived fuels could make up as much as 18% of our regional fuel supply by 2020 (enough to negate the region’s carbon emissions reductions under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).

The invasion of tar sands oil poses a huge threat to wildlife and habitat throughout the Northeast. Moose, trout, ducks, and so many other species rely on the clean water of our rivers and streams for drinking water and habitat – scores of which would face the threat of pollution under a tar sands spill. Climate change is already having a devastating impact on New Hampshire’s moose population. And at the source, the tar sands industry is decimating pristine forest in Alberta that our most loved migratory birds need for nesting.

Keeping Tar Sands Out of Our Region

There are several steps our leaders can take together to keep New England and Eastern Canada tar sands free:

Recognize the threat posed to the region by infrastructure proposals that would bring tar sands across our rivers, streams, farms and towns, and reject such proposals. This includes standing in the way of the Energy East pipeline, which would carry up to 1.1 million barrels of tar sands crude per day through Quebec to New Brunswick; and blocking the use of the Portland-Montreal pipeline for tar sands transport. It also means ensuring that any current movement of oil—by pipeline or rail—is only done in the safest possible manner, which is currently not the case. Regional leaders should be pushing Washington to improve safety regulations for oil transport.

Take steps to keep high-carbon fuels out of the region’s fuel mix, so we know we aren’t putting tar sands-derived fuel in our gas tanks even while we work to stop it from coming through our pipelines. This piece is already in motion—in 2009, 11 governors stated their commitments to keeping tar sands out of our tanks, and this year both Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont and Gov. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire have indicated a willingness to act. Now it’s time to expand this fight to bigger states in the region, especially Massachusetts, whose choices have enormous power to influence the direction of New England’s fuel mix.

Build on efforts in New Hampshire to make sure the state is prepared to respond in case of a spill from existing infrastructure, by making sure communities have funding and tools needed to clean up and protect themselves.

Momentum has been building to keep tar sands out of New England, from a Jurisdictional Opinion in 2013 stating that any proposal to use the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line would be subject to Act 250 review in Vermont, to massive public engagement leading to South Portland taking steps to establish an ordinance that would protect the city from tar sands. However, these local fights must be considered in tandem with fights across the country, such as the battle to stop the controversial Keystone XL pipeline; taken together, they highlight the need for a federal policy that makes President Obama’s climate test the norm, and ensures that major infrastructure choices are only made if they are consistent with efforts to cut carbon pollution.

Take Action for Wildlife

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/meeting-of-governors-and-premiers-a-big-opportunity-for-northeast-wildlife/feed/0Vermont Leads New England on Path to Cleaner Fuel Mixhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/vermont-leads-new-england-on-path-to-cleaner-fuel-mix/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/vermont-leads-new-england-on-path-to-cleaner-fuel-mix/#commentsFri, 20 Jun 2014 14:36:13 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=97174Read more >]]>As more Vermonters learn about the threat of climate disrupting tar sands—one of the planet’s dirtiest and most carbon polluting fuels—being transported through the Northeast Kingdom via an aging oil pipeline, it’s increasingly clear that they want nothing to do with the idea. Our state’s water, air, wildlife, tourism economy and climate are too valuable, and from Barton to Brattleboro to Montpelier, Vermonters are speaking out.

To protect moose, birds, fish and humans here in New England, it’s clear that Canada’s tar sands need to stay in the ground, and Vermont is playing a leading role in that fight.

New England’s moose are threatened by climate change, which will be exacerbated by massive expansion of Canada’s tar sands industry. Photo by David Govatski, U.S. FWS.

Gov. Shumlin takes the first step for New England

As of today, New England, unlike many parts of the United States, can still say we are “tar sands free,” as only a negligible amount of tar sands fuel makes its way into the region. But the sobering reality is that because of the way pipelines and rail cars crisscross our country, by 2020 as much as 18 percent of the fuel we put in our gas tanks could be derived from climate polluting tar sands, especially if major projects like the Keystone XL pipeline are approved. Such an inundation would cause enough additional carbon pollution to erase the gains from the landmark and successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional program to cap carbon pollution.

We’re proud that Gov. Peter Shumlin has taken the all-important first step toward making sure the Northeast doesn’t get pulled backward by the dirtiest fuels, by directing his administration to do a few things here in Vermont that will “lead to a better understanding of the total emissions of fossil fuels, with the ultimate goal of curtailing them.” The Shumlin Administration will:

Investigate the feasibility of developing a Vermont carbon intensity tracking system for fossil fuels we import (contrary to industry complaints, this can be done and is already being done in California).

Reach out to other states to lay the groundwork for this tracking regionally.

Support other ongoing efforts to track the carbon intensity of our region’s fuel.

These are very basic first steps which are vital to moving forward and bringing the rest of the region along with us. The tar sands industry’s plans for massive expansion come at great cost to wildlife, and the United States must use every tool possible to keep the dirty fuel in the ground. Tracking our fuel with the ultimate goal of keeping tar sands out of the mix is an important way to do so.

This commitment shows that Vermont and Gov. Shumlin are not only ready to protect the Northeast Kingdom’s environment and economy, but Vermont is ready to lead the nation forward in the fight against climate change.

Protect Moose from Tar Sands

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/vermont-leads-new-england-on-path-to-cleaner-fuel-mix/feed/1A Growing Chorus to Protect Wildlife from Tar Sands in New Englandhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-growing-chorus-to-protect-wildlife-from-tar-sands-in-new-england/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-growing-chorus-to-protect-wildlife-from-tar-sands-in-new-england/#commentsFri, 25 Apr 2014 13:05:46 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=94913Read more >]]>The chorus of concern in New England over a likely tar sands pipeline project that would be devastating for wildlife just keeps getting louder. On April 18, Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte joined the rest of the New Hampshire congressional delegation to become the latest congressional member from northern New Englandto call for a full environmental review and new presidential permit for a likely tar sands pipeline project through Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Northeastern rivers and streams could be could be threatened by a tar sands spill.

Exxon-owned Portland Pipe Line Corporation has expressed interest in using its 63-year-old Portland-Montreal pipeline for shipping climate-disrupting tar sands oil from Montreal to Portland, most likely to be exported abroad. Given the recent Canadian approval of risky tar sands transit to Montreal, the revival of a 2008 project to ship tar sands through New England is an almost certain next step. The line is currently used for conventional crude.

The letter from Granite State Senators Ayotte and Shaheen, and Representatives Shea-Porter and Kuster means that all of the higher office elected officials in northern New England have requested such a thorough review, with the exception of Maine’s Governor LePage and Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins has stated that some level of review should be required before the line is allowed to be used for tar sands.

As has been tragically displayed in tar sands pipeline spills in Marshall, Michigan (2010) and Mayflower, Arkansas, tar sands is much harder to clean up than convention crude when it spills, threatening critical wildlife habitat and resources like the Connecticut and Androscoggin rivers, Sebago Lake, the drinking water source for the Portland, Maine area, and Victory State Forest in Vermont. The tar sands pipeline that burst in Mayflower was also owned by Exxon and of a similar age to the Portland-Montreal pipeline

It results in about 20% more climate ruining carbon pollution than conventional oil. Runaway climate change threatens key New England industries like skiing and maple sugaring at risk.

Tar Sands a Deadly Threat to Moose

In Senator Ayotte’s New Hampshire, no animal explains the urgency of opposing tar sands better than the storied moose. Moose in New Hampshire are in sad decline, and a changing climate is likely a major culprit.

Moose in New England are suffering, likely due in part to climate change.

Due to warmer winters caused by carbon pollution, harmful winter ticks are thriving in New Hampshire, attaching themselves by the tens of thousands to young moose and literally sucking the life out of them. Mortality rates in moose calves are shockingly high. The added risk of a pipeline tar sands oil spill into the waters where moose live and feed just compounds the threat posed by the proposed pipeline project.

Allowing tar sands pipelines that expand market access will further drive up carbon pollution by enabling more development of land-locked tar sands. We need to make energy investments that will reduce, not increase, carbon pollution.

It is only with a bi-partisan commitment to ending our addiction to fossil fuels and rapidly developing a cleaner, safer energy future that we can save treasured species like moose from suffering the worst effects of climate change. Leaders like Senator Ayotte are listening to the voices of their constituents and making that commitment.

We need to see that commitment spread nation-wide. Time is running out.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-growing-chorus-to-protect-wildlife-from-tar-sands-in-new-england/feed/1A Year After Mayflower Disaster, an Oil Spill at Every Turnhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-year-after-mayflower-disaster-an-oil-spill-at-every-turn/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-year-after-mayflower-disaster-an-oil-spill-at-every-turn/#commentsTue, 01 Apr 2014 19:40:38 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=93681Read more >]]>A year ago, residents of a quiet suburban neighborhood in Mayflower, Arkansas, watched in horror as heavy, toxic tar sands oil poured out of a burst pipeline, across their yards and into their street, covering everything in black muck and releasing noxious gases.

Mallard duck coated in oil, March 2013 (via Arkansas HAWK Center)

The spill made national news, and people around the country saw residents being escorted out of their homes with just a few belongings, and in many cases moving away. It would be appropriate to take a moment and commemorate the one-year anniversary of this devastating spill, and consider ways to move beyond a source of energy that causes such destruction.

Too bad we don’t have time for that. As a nation, we have been busy dealing with four oil spills in different states in just the past two weeks.

No matter the location of an oil spill, wildlife are killed or injured, people are exposed to chemicals and pushed from their homes, and water becomes too polluted for drinking or recreation. It takes months and years, even decades, to clean up.

And there is no time to dwell on the implications afterward – because by the time the birds are cleaned up, the cameras turned off, and people returned to their homes, it has happened again elsewhere. And the rest of us? Between news of the latest spill in one river or another, anniversaries of huge disasters like Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon, there are so many that we can’t even keep them straight.

It Could Happen in Vermont

One year after the Mayflower disaster, 25 years after Exxon Valdez, we still face another oil spill at every turn. That fact should prompt us to consider the aging pipeline that runs right through our backyard, cutting through the Northeast Kingdom between New Hampshire and Maine. The Exxon-owned company that operates the pipeline is clinging to the possibility of using it to transport toxic tar sands oil from Montreal to Portland. As the company releases carefully worded statements about safety in hopes of allaying any concerns over a project involving its half-century-old equipment, they beg us to ignore the most important and indisputable fact of all: Pipelines spill.

Pipelines spill in Texas. Pipelines spill in Michigan. Pipelines spill in Arkansas, they spill in Ohio. And, yes, they spill in Vermont. The biggest recorded spill from the Portland-Montreal pipeline in Vermont was years ago. Many have forgotten the day that people stood on the bridge in Coventry and peered down at oil coating the icy Black River, and watched as cleanup crews threw flaming kerosene-soaked hay bales in to try to burn off the oil. But it did happen. A spill today of the conventional crude currently being transported through the pipeline would be bad for communities from Jay to Sutton to Victory; if the pipeline carried tar sands crude instead, an incident could be devastating.

Looking down at the icy Black River in Coventry, Vt., January 2014 – in the spot where residents noticed oil slicks under the bridge after a 1952 spill. Photo: Annie Mackin

Vermonters understand the threat. The pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas, was similar in age and size to the pipeline that runs through Vermont. 42 towns have already voted to show their opposition to the transport of tar sands crude through our state. Even without the similarities, the fact of pipelines remains the same: They spill, no matter where they are, and that’s the last thing Vermonters need to spend their time worrying about. We should be spending our time finding ways to move to cleaner sources of energy, instead of enabling further expansion of extreme fuels that pollute our nation’s waterways and wreck our climate.

Speak Out Against Oil Spills

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/a-year-after-mayflower-disaster-an-oil-spill-at-every-turn/feed/1You’re Invited: Retirement Party for the Portland-Montreal Pipelinehttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/youre-invited-retirement-party-for-the-portland-montreal-pipeline/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/youre-invited-retirement-party-for-the-portland-montreal-pipeline/#commentsThu, 20 Mar 2014 19:25:14 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=92905Read more >]]>NWF recently released documents showing the company that owns the Portland-Montreal pipeline estimated its pipes to have a 60-year life span. We did the math: The pipe built in 1950 passed its projected retirement date in 2010. So we’d like to throw the pipeline a retirement party.

After its 60-plus years in the ground (admittedly with a leak or spill here and there, but who’s counting?) the Portland-Montreal pipeline has earned a relaxing retirement, maybe in a cabin in Canada, and we’d like to help make that happen as soon as possible. One thing this pipeline clearly does not need in its advanced age is to be put to work carrying some of the heaviest, most toxic crude known to man.

This cabin in Alberta would be a nice place for the Portland-Montreal Pipeline to retire.Photo: https://flic.kr/p/i69BMH

60 years and counting

The pipeline that runs from Portland, Maine, to Montreal, is actually a set of three pipes that run alongside each other. One of them, a 12-inch pipe that was built in 1940, has already been put out to pasture. A 24” pipe was built in 1960, and technically has a few more years to go.

The 18-inch pipe, the one most likely to be reversed to carry tar sands crude from Montreal to Portland, was built in 1950—the year of the first credit card, the first organ transplant, and the first Peanuts cartoon strip. Since then, we have seen advances in science, engineering, and transportation that we could never have imagined, including the development of increasingly extreme types of fossil fuels, along with cleaner energy sources that can keep us off the nastiest stuff.

When man first walked on the moon, the pipe had already been underground in the Northeast Kingdom for two decades. Lots of things have changed over the years, and while we understand how hard it can be to admit it’s time to slow down at the end of a long career, we’re here to help with the transition.

A lot has happened since 1950

As we reminisce about the 60-plus years since the pipes were installed, we might also look back at the environmental milestones during those years. After the ditches were dug and pipes laid across the Northeast Kingdom, it would be more than 20 years before the first Earth Day. The United States had yet to pass the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, and had barely begun to consider the implications of our actions on the natural environment on which we so completely rely.

But now we know better

The Portland-Montreal pipeline runs through farm fields and forests, and crosses 15 major rivers and streams, including the Missisquoi River, the Barton River, and the Connecticut River. It also cuts right through Victory Bog, one of the most important wildlife habitats in New England – home to moose, birds such as the Bicknell’s thrush, and unique plant life, serving as a destination for cross-country skiers, birders, and many others.

The pipeline cuts right through Victory Bog, one of the most important wildlife habitats in New England – home to wildlife like the Bicknell’s Thrush. Photo by Steve D. Faccio (Vermont Center for Ecostudies)

Already, 42 towns in our state have voted to oppose transport of tar sands here. Vermonters are sending a message: We understand the importance of our water and land. It’s vital to our tourism industry, our farmers, our wildlife, and the very fabric of life here. It’s no time to consider transporting a substance that could devastate those natural resources through an aging pipeline – it’s time to throw the pipeline a retirement party instead.

The pipeline passes through Barton, crossing Barton River and running alongside Crystal Lake. Barton is one of 13 towns to pass resolutions opposing tar sands.

Town Meeting Day 2014 was a great day in the continued fight to keep tar sands out of Vermont and protect wildlife like moose from this dirty oil. When people from around the state gathered in our time-honored tradition of direct democracy, 13 towns voted to take a stand against the possibility of toxic tar sands being transported through an aging pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom, or by any other means.

The Northeast Kingdom speaks up

Perhaps the most telling part of this news is where the towns are: The majority of towns who considered and passed these resolutions are in the Northeast Kingdom, some of them crossed by the 60-year-old pipeline itself.

Sutton, where the pumping station for the pipeline in Vermont is located, passed the resolution after some discussion.

David Tucker spoke in favor, and said the conversation among neighbors was helpful. “Sutton voters don’t want to be overlooked,” he said. “Our town’s natural beauty is valuable to us, and we don’t want even the possibility of an environmental accident here to be ignored just because we are such a small town.

“The people I talked with wanted to make sure that we raised our voices so that our town is recognized as our home, and not just an irrelevant place on the map,” he added.

“I got a whole lot of signatures at the Glover recycling center one cold Saturday morning,” said Linda Elbow, who worked to get the resolution on the warning for Glover’s meeting, where it passed. “And it was worth it.”

What about a spill?

Transporting tar sands through Vermont would directly threaten the moose, fish and birds that rely on clean water to survive. Photo donated by National Wildlife Photo Contest entrant Marin Packer.

The Portland-Montreal pipeline runs from Portland, Maine, northward to Montreal. The company that operates the pipeline has expressed interest in reversing its flow and using it to transport diluted tar sands bitumen – a form of heavy crude that must be strip mined or drained from the earth in a process similar to fracking, then diluted with chemicals to be pumped through pipelines – from Alberta’s tar sands deposits and south through New England.

“These resolutions are the result of Vermonters up and down the pipeline, and from every corner of the state, getting informed about tar sands and spreading the word to their neighbors,” said 350 Vermont’s Jade Walker. “Once people find out the devastation and pollution caused by tar sands extraction and transport– combined with the unique difficulty of cleaning up spills where they have occurred – they want nothing to do with it.”

Not only does tar sands extraction devastate wildlife habitat at the source in Alberta, transporting tar sands through Vermont would directly threaten the moose, fish and birds that rely on clean water to survive.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/vermont-towns-protect-wildlife-and-vote-no-on-tar-sands/feed/0Despite Industry Bullying, New England Stands Up to Tar Sandshttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/12/despite-industry-bullying-new-england-stands-up-to-tar-sands/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/12/despite-industry-bullying-new-england-stands-up-to-tar-sands/#commentsFri, 27 Dec 2013 11:30:22 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=89643Read more >]]>The City Council of South Portland, Maine, responded last week to wide concern among residents and passed a 180-day moratorium on any move to transport tar sands there.

White-tailed deer are among the species under threat from tar-sands development in the Northeast. Photo by N. and M.J. Mishler (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

How did this happen? Residents learned about tar sands and the potential threat they could pose to the city’s environment and economy. They talked to their friends and neighbors about the issue. They got informed through an ordinance campaign that would have kept tar sands infrastructure from being built on their waterfront. (Unfortunately, the ordinance was narrowly defeated as a result of an industry misinformation campaign that spent more than $600,000 scaring voters into believing the ordinance was overbroad.) The campaign made clear, though, that the citizens of South Portland did not want tar sands in their community.

Exxon-owned Portland Montreal Pipe Line Company knows it is losing. It has spent months denying any plans to transport tar sands through its aging pipeline while at the same time signaling it was open for tar sands business. The pipeline currently carries oil from Portland to Montreal.

I’d call what happened in South Portland that resulted in the moratorium community engagement at its finest. And what did the oil industry call it? Grounds for a lawsuit.

Just days after South Portland began considering a temporary moratorium on tar sands within city limits, the Washington, D.C.-based American Petroleum Institute sent a threatening letter to the City Council.

Despite denying there is a tar sands project at all, API oddly seems to think tar sands is critical for South Portland’s future—and no big deal, anyway. In the letter, the API offers to “explain” why the city’s concerns about the heavy, dirty fuel mix are “unfounded.” It continues to say that delaying or prohibiting the development of oil sands in general could harm Maine and the United States in general, and suggests that South Portland’s move to protect itself is an “end-run around federal and state policy.” It even goes so far as to suggest that because the devastating effects of tar sands spills are currently “being addressed” with studies, there is no need to worry about the damage they have already done to bodies of water and towns in Michigan and Arkansas, or the damage a spill could do to Maine’s waters.

Standard Industry Practice

This isn’t the first time the oil industry and its cheerleaders in Canada has tried to influence, confuse, or outright bully communities of all sizes into stepping back: Last March, when towns across Vermont considered passing resolutions at Town Meeting opposing the transport of tar sands through our state, Canadian officials sent letters to the towns informing them such action was unnecessary and misguided. But Vermonters know how to think for themselves, and 29 towns passed anti-tar sands resolutions.

South Portland is making a statement. Towns all over Vermont have made a statement. Tar sands are devastating to water and wildlife both at their source in Canada, and wherever they spill in America. The fuel isn’t worth the risk to our environment and economy, and the region does not want the risks.

The road from here will not be easy, but if communities all along the pipeline route—and all over the country—stand up to the oil industry, we can win.

Help protect our wildlife and communities from dirty oil by urging the State Department to say no to tar sands in the northeast.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/12/despite-industry-bullying-new-england-stands-up-to-tar-sands/feed/0Industry Giveaway Bill Seeks to Gut Public Review of Dangerous Pipeline Projectshttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/#commentsTue, 29 Oct 2013 01:41:02 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=87573Read more >]]>Now that Congress is done shuttering our National Parks and needlessly putting the world economy at risk, it’s time for them to turn to another of their favorite pastimes – trying to deny citizens the right to participate in reviewing projects that could poison their water supplies, cause more devastating extreme weather events, and lead to countless wildlife casualties.

Michigan Representative Fred Upton introduced the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, which – if passed – would create a near rubber stamp approval process for massive tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL and deny public participation. It would also do away totally with federal review of reversal or expansion projects, such as the likely tar sands reversal of the Exxon-owned Portland-Montreal Pipe Line in northern New England and the proposed expansion of the Alberta Clipper line which would about double the amount of tar sands flowing through the Great Lakes region.

An old oil pipeline in Winnipeg near the Assiniboine River. Flickr photo by Joel Penner.

This bill is another attack on America’s bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act – better known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to take a hard at the environmental impacts of major projects – like tar sands pipelines – and, most importantly, give the public a chance to learn about those impacts and weigh in with concerns before they are forced to bear the risks.

In the sum, this bill would:

Require projects that import or export oil, gas or electricity across the Canadian or Mexican borders to be approved within 120 days unless the relevant official determines that the project “is not in the national security interests” of the U.S.

Exempt the projects from NEPA, wiping out longstanding requirements that agencies determine whether such projects are needed and that provide the public with the right to comment and review alternatives.

Eliminate pre-project reviews to determine if a project is actually in our national interest.

Exempt from permitting and review major changes – like reversal or expansion – of existing pipelines.

The need for thorough public review of pipeline projects is even more important now that pressure is being exerted to pump dirty, toxic tar sands through new and existing pipelines. The impacts of tar sands are immense:

Tar sands is at least 17% more carbon pollution intensive than regular oil, meaning increased use will accelerate, rather than reverse, the climate disruption that is already wreaking havoc on our planet.

Allowing more tar sands into the United States spurs further destruction of critical boreal forest habitat and could lead to the loss of up to 72 million migratory bird births, striking at the heart of the U.S. and Canada’s shared wildlife heritage.

On Tuesday, Vermont’s Department of Environmental Commissioner David Mears and pipeline expert and attorney Paul Blackburn are testifying before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Power on why gutting review of major pipeline projects is a bad idea.

It should not be lost on people that tomorrow’s hearing is on the anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. This is a day when we should be reflecting on the costs of carbon pollution, and the need to make smarter, more informed energy choices. It is a good day to reject a bill that seeks a massive giveaway to the fossil fuel industry and aims to rips the public out of the decision-making process for dangerous and dirty pipelines.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/feed/0New Englanders Invade DC to Stay Tar Sands Freehttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/05/new-englanders-invade-dc-to-stay-tar-sands-free/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/05/new-englanders-invade-dc-to-stay-tar-sands-free/#commentsWed, 08 May 2013 17:24:31 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=80285Read more >]]>I’m from New Hampshire, which (unless you listen to Texans) is the greatest state in the Union — I grew up fishing for perch off the dock at Lake Winnipesaukee, catching frogs in the woods behind my house, and skiing in the White Mountains. Although we have a few cities, NH is mostly defined by its small towns and a pace of life that’s a far cry from Washington, DC, where I live now. Until recently, there wasn’t much overlap between my background and my work fighting dirty fuels like tar sands, but all that changed when the oil industry decided to try to sneak a tar sands pipeline project through NH, Maine and Vermont.

Mt. Wonalancet, NH, not far from the route of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline (photo: Chris Schoenboem)

We’ve talked about the Northeast pipeline quite a bit on this blog, but here’s the basic story: Right now, the 60+ year old Portland-Montreal Pipeline transports regular oil from the coast of Maine up to refineries in Canada. The company (which is majority-owned by Exxon) wants to reverse the flow of this line and change the product it carries — instead of oil, they want to transport over 12 million gallons per day of tar sands, the same poisonous, corrosive stuff that was at the heart of the pipeline disasters in Arkansas last month and in 2010 in Michigan. This plan obviously has people worried, and making matters worse is that the company, which doesn’t have a “formal” proposal yet, seems to believe it has all the federal approval it needs to turn on the pumps.

Fighting back against Big Oil

Fortunately, New Englanders aren’t known to let themselves get trampled on. Local conservation groups, public health experts and many others has been fighting back against Exxon, bringing widespread attention to the project — enough that we have the support of nearly the entire Congressional delegation from those three states (Senator Ayotte, we’re still waiting on ya). We even managed to get 1,500 people to a rally in Portland back in frigid January, the biggest gathering of any kind in 25 years. Suffice to say, New Englanders care, and we don’t want this dangerous substance pumped through our rivers and forests, threatening species like moose and black bears and contributing to climate change.

The problem is, the US State Department (which is tasked with overseeing the pipeline) doesn’t necessarily notice anything amiss and hasn’t the told the company it can’t proceed without a new permit. The State Department needs to make it clear: if Exxon wants to bring poisonous, climate-wrecking tar sands across Northern New England, the impacts are going to be given a hard look and approval is going to needed. It’s a common sense requirement, just making sure we know the threats and the particulars before giving the green light to Exxon, but State hasn’t gotten involved yet because the company hasn’t made a formal proposal.

And that’s the catch-22: unless the State Department tells them to formalize their plans, Exxon might never get around to filing the paperwork — and they’ve already told regional officials they don’t have to. They’re more than happy to act like the cartoon cat burping up feathers, shrugging its shoulders when you ask what happened to Tweety Bird. But this is real life, and New Englanders want to protect their region and wildlife from spills and climate change. All risk and no reward does not interest New Hampshire, or Vermont or Maine for that matter.

Mr. Smith (and a bunch more) goes to Washington

New England and DC — culture-wise — may sometimes feel like oil and water, but when actual oil and actual water are in the mix, it’s worth a trip to the nation’s capitol. On Monday, a group from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont came down to Washington, DC to tell their stories to State Department officials in person. It wasn’t your usual DC lobby trip: Fishermen, retired oil industry lawyers, and a handful of conservationists all made the rounds of Capitol Hill, meeting with agencies and Congressional offices with a simple request: Can someone PLEASE make sure this tar sands plan is carefully reviewed?

Our hometown lobby team at the State Department (photo: Peter LaFontaine/NWF)

To their credit, State sent their A-team to meet with us, including Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones, who’s also been in charge of State’s Keystone XL analysis and is also a former resident of Maine. We showed how the pieces stack up to make it clear that the Northeast project was moving forward. Lisa Pohlmann, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, talked about the pipeline’s zigzag route across the Crooked River, and Eliot Stanley of the Sebago Lake Anglers Association told how a spill would devastate fishing in the region. Denis Rydjeski, a Dartmouth College professor, drew the connections between the Portland-Montreal Pipeline and another Exxon holding: the Pegasus pipeline that caused havoc in Mayflower, Arkansas earlier this spring. His sister lives not far from Mayflower, and it brought home the fact that disasters aren’t something that just happen to “other people.”

Pushing toxic, spill-prone tar sands through Exxon’s pipeline across Maine is an all-risk, no-reward proposition. The health of Maine people, our economy, and our way of life, depend on clean water for drinking, tourism, our fishing industry, and recreation. - Lisa Pohlmann, Natural Resources Council of Maine

We plan to keep the heat on Exxon and the State Department, and our group also got a chance to sit down with (deep breath…) the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to talk about updating our nation’s safety standards for tar sands projects like the Northeast pipeline and Keystone XL. After Mayflower — and Kalamazoo, before that — we can’t trust the industry to operate safely, or even to tell us what they have planned for our back yards.

It can be hard to tell with federal agencies, but I think State got the message.